Close the Door Opened by Kyl-Lieberman

Edwards position on Iraq (4.00 / 1)

Thank you for this diary. Kyl-Lieberman, like all Bush policies is flawed because it is Bush's policy. Sen.Edwards policy on Iraq is also a break from Bush Cheney saber rattling.

http://www.johnedwar...

Stabilizing Iran And Protecting The United States

  "Iran represents a great challenge for the United States. We can best prevent Iran from threatening our interests through a 'smart power' strategy that will combine carrots and sticks, direct engagement, and international pressure to convince moderate Iranians that they cannot and must not pursue nuclear weapons." - John Edwards

In regards to your comments about using diplomacy...it is "irresponsible not to exhaust our options."

Leverage through Increased Pressure

Stabilizing Iran will require the use of both "carrots" and "sticks"-pressure and incentives. While the sanctions already in place provide some leverage over Iran, they have had limited success. As president, Edwards will pursue a new course of targeted sanctions both for American companies and for foreign companies.
Encouragement through Incentives

The United States has more leverage than many think over Iran through incentives that could encourage Iran's leadership to abandon extremism and comply with international rules. As president, Edwards will draw Iran into compliance through incentives including increased refinery capacity, modification of the embargo, membership in multilateral organizations, and the creation of a fuel bank.
Direct Negotiations with China and Russia

China and Russia both recently voted with the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran. As president, Edwards will reach out to China and Russia to work on reaching their economic objectives through alternatives that do not assist Iran's military nuclear capability.

John Edwards believes it is of the utmost importance that we prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a politically unstable leader and an open supporter of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran's possession of nuclear weapons could also set off a regional nuclear arms race in an unstable region in the world, which would directly threaten US interests. As president, Edwards would take aggressive steps to resolve the situation and to protect the United States and our allies.
Uniting the International Community

We must do everything in our power to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions through diplomatic measures that will, over time, force Iran to finally understand the world community will not allow it to possess nuclear weapons. Every major U.S. ally agrees a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. This is a positive sign, and we should continue to work with them to isolate Iran.
Directly Engaging Iran

We need to engage Iran directly. As president, Edwards will negotiate with Iranian leaders who have met a number of criteria, such as recognition of the international rule of law, recognition of the rights of Jews and the state of Israel, and a commitment to the promise of diplomacy.

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 17:37:51 PM CST

Obama, Iran and a wise consensus (0.00 / 0)

Obama Introduces Iran Measure

The Associated Press | November 02, 2007 By Nedra Pickler
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat Barack Obama introduced a Senate resolution late Thursday that says President Bush does not have authority to use military force against Iran, the latest move in a debate with presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton about how to respond to that country's nuclear ambitions.

Clinton's campaign accused Obama of playing politics instead of taking a leadership role from the outset.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the Illinois senator drafted the measure in an effort to "nullify the vote the Senate took to give the president the benefit of the doubt on Iran."
Burton was referring to an amendment sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, that passed 76-22 on Sept. 26 and designates Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
Clinton was the only Senate Democrat running for president to support the measure, and her rivals have argued that Bush could use it to justify war with Iran. Clinton insists her vote would not support military strikes and instead was a vote for stepped-up diplomacy.
Last week, the Bush administration declared the Revolutionary Guard a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and announced new sanctions meant to isolate Iran. The Iranian government contends its nuclear program is aimed only toward providing nuclear power.
. -snip-

His resolution says any offensive military action against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress, and seeks to clarify that nothing approved so far provides that authority.
Biden spokeswoman Elizabeth Alexander said Biden believes the amendment could be used to justify military action.
"He has also made clear many times his view that the president lacks the authority to use force against Iran absent authorization from Congress," she said. "He didn't need to clarify that position. He's been clear from the start."
Even though Dodd shares that view, he signed the letter because "we felt that it was necessary to make it clear that this administration cannot take military action against Iran without the express authorization of Congress," said Dodd spokesman Hari Sevugan.

Obama Envisions New Iran Approach

The New York Times | November 02, 2007
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JEFF ZELENY
CHICAGO, Oct. 31 - Senator Barack Obama says he would "engage in aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek "regime change" if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

Matthew Yglesias on Obama's foreign policy

By Sam Graham-Felsen - Nov 2nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm EDT
The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias has two posts on Obama's foreign policy today.
Barack Obama opens up a clear policy difference with Hillary Clinton, a strategy toward the greater Middle East centered around an effort to forge a "grand bargain" with Iran. This doesn't necessarily sound incredibly different from Clinton's strategy of saying that the United States "should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives," but it's pretty different. The difference, in particular, is that as Flynt Leverett has argued in a non-campaign context the "grand bargain" approach might work, whereas Clinton's approach won't work.
Zbigniew Brzezinski and other people in the Obama circle have long been advocates of this more sensible approach to Iran, but until now the subject has been considered to "hot" politically to touch. But now Obama's going there and it's a very good thing he is. This is what we should be debating in this country - strategy, not tactics. A diplomatic approach that doesn't work followed by war is really not much better than a "rush to war", what's needed is a strategy that avoids war and advances the interests of the United States. And now Obama's putting one on the table.
 

And of course, Mrs. Clinton:

Clinton E-Mail Hits Obama on Iran

By Katharine Q. Seelye
While Hillary Clinton is celebrating her 60th birthday tonight, another milestone is taking place off stage: Her campaign is publicly turning its guns on Barack Obama.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 18:07:52 PM CST

Clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized (0.00 / 0)

110th CONGRESS 1st Session

S. J. RES. 23

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 1, 2007
Mr. REID (for Mr. OBAMA) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT RESOLUTION
Clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.

Whereas the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 107-243) authorized the President `to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq';

Whereas, on September 26, 2007, the Senate agreed to a provision, Senate Amendment 3017 to Senate Amendment 2011 to H.R. 1585, stating the sense of the Senate that `the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region';

Whereas, on September 26, 2007, the Senate also stated the sense of the Senate `that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq';

Whereas, on October 25, 2007, the Department of State designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL) as proliferators of weapons of mass destruction under Executive Order 13382 in relation to concerns about their role in proliferation activities;

Whereas, on October 25, 2007, the Department of the Treasury also designated 9 IRGC-affiliated entities and 5 IRGC-affiliated individuals, as derivatives of the IRGC, as well as Iran's state-owned Bank Melli and Bank Mellat and 3 individuals affiliated with Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization (AIO), as proliferators of weapons of mass destruction or supporters of terrorism under Executive Order 13382;

Whereas, on October 25, 2007, the Department of the Treasury also designated the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) as a supporter of terrorism for providing material support to the Taliban and other terrorist organizations, and designated Iran's state-owned Bank Saderat as a terrorist financier, under Executive Order 13224; and

Whereas any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That nothing in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 107-243), any act that serves as the statutory authority for Executive Order 13382 or Executive Order 13224, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law including the terms of Executive Order 13382 or Executive Order 13224 shall be construed to authorize, encourage, or in any way address the use of the Armed Forces of the United States against Iran.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 19:12:48 PM CST

Two questions. (0.00 / 0)

First.

Senator Barack Obama cosponsored a bill to do designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group in April 2007.  Does he still favor that (and this was a key, and dangerous, part of Kyl-Lieberman)?

I agree with Nancy Pelosi on this aspect of Kyl-Lieberman:

"There's never been a declaration by a Congress before in our history, before the Senate acted, that declared a piece of a country's army to be a terrorist organization."

snip

"It could be brought up (by someone else), but I'm not bringing it up," she said. "It's a Sense of the House. What is the point? This has never happened before, that a Congress should determine that one piece of somebody's military is that. And if it is a threat to our troops in Iraq, and [Iran is] in Iraq, we should deal with them in Iraq."

http://www.observer....

Second, what will Sen. Obama do to pass this bill in the Senate.  He has missed so many votes.  Merely introducing a bill, as he did with the Iraq war when he decided ot run for president, seems to be more about his campaign and posturing than about stopping Bush.  At a minimum, he should have showed up to vote on Kyl-Liebrman and should have used his ability to "reach out" to all sdes ot prevent its passage.  What difference will introducing this bill really make?

---

by: TomP @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 23:21:26 PM CST

Diplimacy. (0.00 / 0)

Diplomacy refers to a level of competence, assurance, courtesy and honesty which a professional person has acquired either through a course of study or years of experience.

There was actually a good reason to suggest that "politics end at the nation's shores."  It lessened the chance that the unseasoned or raw politician would make a blunder in the international arena.

Of course, it's hard to make more blunders than the current occupant of the White House.  It's not an example to be emulated.

---

by: hannah @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 05:20:51 AM CST

Biden actually leads (0.00 / 0)

Lest we forget, it was Biden who pointed out the true fallacy of all this focus on Iran while pointing to the real dangers in Pakistan during the last debate (BEFORE this whole meltdown!). Now he is the one the leaders are calling and he is the one with the substantive plan.

Biden is the only one with a plan for Iraq.

Biden was actually there to vote against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Only one other presidential candidate voted against it.

If we are talking about a true leader, we are talkingabout Joe Biden and NO ONE else!

---

by: smheart78 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 09:31:11 AM CST

Hanging your hat on a vote, eh? (0.00 / 0)

Hmmm.

There are legitimate claims on Biden's and Dodd's parts, concerning leadership. I concur.

With regard to the current cluster f&%# in the ME; IMO, you should enter the room with your hat in your hand.

The peg that you are trying to hang it on is rotted at the wall of 2002!

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 09:44:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

We should have never trusted Bush with that vote!
Though our patriotism were high at the time and the Afghanistan operations were a success, it was a huge mistake we are all paying for now.

Now, concerning legitimate leadership. These Biden and Dodd were there- period. and they can speak to it.

Furthermore: Stating and KNOWING that our troops will be there well into their first term --> HOW can one call to cut off funding to the troops?!?! Biden voted to fund it and get the MRAPS into IRAQ were I've heard of at least 8 confirmed lives saved to date. Well worth the money even though it may cost the presidency. That's leadership.

I will hang my hat on someone answering that question.

---

by: smheart78 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 16:11:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

More support (0.00 / 0)

Why is he polling so low in NH. I would figure he would be higher at this point?

---

by: smheart78 @ Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 16:12:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Powers's resignation (0.00 / 0)

By the way, does everyone agree that she was right to resign? I've seen a lot of people say yes, but Charlie Pierce over at Altercation weighs in today with a thunderous "No!" My view is close to Charlie's, that possibly Obama should have found a way to refuse her resignation, or at least not have folded so fast (because that plays into the "Obama is a wimp" meme that Clinton is trying to push). But what do people think?

---

by: michael57 @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 20:09:03 PM CST

Josh Marshall at TPM also strongly disagrees (0.00 / 0)

with her dismissal.

I agree with it, despite the painful loss of a key policy aide.  This was no lower level figure - Power is part of the Obama brain trust.  But I think it's necessary to draw a strong contrast between his campaign and what Clinton is doing.  First you have to win the nomination and then the general election, before you can start locking in the people around you.  Before that time, they must be expendable according to the dictates of the campaign.

(I do think it was wrong, wrong, wrong of the Scotsman to publish a remark that was specifically requested to be off-the-record, despite what I think was Power's lack of judgment in speaking so candidly with a reporter.)

What I don't understand is how it's now Friday, and I haven't really seen Obama come out swinging since the Tuesday primaries.  One can be forceful without going low-ball or negative, or siding up to Republicans. Sitting around and hoping the math will work will not win him the nomination.

If I were him I wouldn't bother with the surrogate tax-return fight, which really is not worth the profit to his campaign, and instead confront her directly on national security.

McCain's and Hillary's Iraq vote is a legitimate cudgel with which to beat back "crossing the threshold" - why on earth has he not used it yet?

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 20:20:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Did you see Friday night's Countdown? (0.00 / 0)

Whatever the Obama press people did to spark that, kudos to them.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:20:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Personally, (4.00 / 2)

I am sick and tired of having virtuous behavior characterized as either weak or wimpy.  The Obama campaign has set a standard of polite discourse which includes the avoidance of name-calling.  Good.  Never mind that the resignation of an unpaid adviser who had a slip of the tongue is really a non-event.

What I want to see addressed is the persistent pattern of deception coming out of the Clinton campaign, including now the principal.  There's a reason why an oath to testify accurately specifies "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."  Perhaps it's because she's not spent a lot of time litigating, but for a lawyer, Clinton seems almost totally ignorant of the meaning of "whole" and "nothing but."  What we get from her is either pork bellies or lipstick on the pig--i.e. distractions that don't answer the question to anyone's satisfaction.

---

by: hannah @ Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:20:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"That's why he opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment," (0.00 / 0)

I opposed it too, but I didn't have the chance to actually vote against it, unlike some people...

---

by: sdoyle @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 21:08:03 PM CST